GOVERNMENT AND THEOCRACYThe State must be Openly, Publicly, and Officially Christian

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do
all to the glory of God.

1 Corinthians 10:31

Modern "liberals" dislike the Puritan view of Christian
statesmanship because of its hostility toward the Messianic State. A Biblical "reconstruction" of the State
strips away its power, its bureaucracies, and its prestige, and in its place creates
decentralized personal responsibility and a distrust of political power.

Modern "evangelicals" also dislike Puritan statesmanship because it looks to
all of the Bible - including the Old Testament -
for binding authority on the "reconstruction" of politics. Both
"liberals" and "evangelicals" are alarmed at the
"intolerance" of the Puritans.

Theocracy or Pluralism: Which is Evil?

One morning you walk out front to get your newspaper and you see that your pagan
next-door neighbor has built an altar on his front lawn and is preparing to rip the heart
out of his young daughter's chest as a gift to his gods. Will you rescue the child -- and
thereby "impose" your religious values on your "devout" neighbor -- or
are you a "pluralist?" Will your religion govern all of your life, or
will you keep it in a spiritual compartment reserved for a church building on Sunday
mornings?

As we will see on this page, the Puritans believed that all of life should be governed
by their Christianity. Even civil government was to be governed by their religion. For the
Puritans, Christian statesmanship was Theocratic statesmanship.

Many people today join the Supreme Court in opposing the fusion of
religion and government.[1]Many people today view
"pluralism" as "enlightened" and "democratic," and
"Theocracy" as an unmitigated evil.[2] People fear that
"Theocracy" will mean the denial of civil rights and the breeding of a spirit of
"intolerance." Secularists bemoan the

turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects
determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of
the government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted
Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other
Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another
shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In
efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league
with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in
jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.[3]

But the Crusades and the Inquisition and the KKK and the Religious Right combined are
but a drop in the bucket compared to the denial of civil rights occasioned by the Secular
State. Secularism, not Christianity, has made the 20th century the
most violent century in recorded history.[4]Everyone
can see that the Inquisition and the Crusades were evil; only a few have come to see
secular government as an even greater evil.[5]

Philosophers sometimes speak of "epistemological self-consciousness." It
means being consistent with what you profess to believe. When Christians are consistent,
they grow out of Inquisitions and Crusades. But when Atheists are consistent - and the
20th century has become more and more consistently atheistic - well . . . God says
"all they that hate Me love death." (Proverbs 8:36) Secularism brings death. Secularism means Genocide.

Beyond Pluralism

"The Divine Right of Kings" was universally held several centuries ago. But
the inner logic of monarchy led to a struggle for human rights. Now we have moved away
from kings and royalty toward government "of, by, and for the people." And we
think "pluralist democracy" is so much better than the "divine right of
kings."

But the inner logic of Pluralism has led to violent crime, widespread ignorance, rising
rates of sexually transmitted diseases among 14-year olds, graphic violence and perverted
sex as "entertainment," ubiquitous divorce and illegitimacy, and the inability
of our government or leaders to make a moral judgment and say that all of this wrong.
After all, we mustn't "impose our values" on others. Indeed, when Christians
attempt to "impose their values" on child-killers by praying in front of their
homes or protesting in front of their clinics, they are met with armed force in the
form of the State's police and military. In an effort to avoid "Theocracy," the
Christians are arrested for violating the "civil rights" of the abortionists.

Civil rights are only violated when one group of people claim the moral right to a
monopoly of violence over others. Is the answer to human rights violations to strip our
government and culture of the moral absolutes Christianity provides? I don't think so.

America was founded as a Christian Theocracy, not a secular nation.[6]
The ACLU and the U.S. Supreme Court are not telling us the truth, "the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth." Those who left Europe did so in obedience to God, in
order to further His Kingdom. The establishment of civil government was seen as a tool in
the process of establishing the Christian religion in the New World.

Most Christians do not understand this point. Most Christians are ignorant of history,
and they believe that in the here-and-now Christianity should be an essentially
"private" matter, and should not have too much influence in politics or
"public" life. They believe this even if they deny the doctrine of the ACLU
known as the "separation of church and state." Even politically active pro-life
people will deny that the Bible is an infallible standard for all of culture, not just
"religion" or "moral" issues.

There is no neutrality. If the State is not actively promoting the
Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. We must come to grips with this
fact.

The Puritans who settled this continent were far more aware of what the Bible requires
than are most Christians today. The Puritans recognized that Christianity
requires government to be Trinitarian, characterized by a public and official Theocracy.[7]

Biblical Theocracy is not the Roman Law-type rule by the clergy, seen in the Crusades
and Inquisitions; Biblical Theocracy -- the decentralized Rule of God's Law -- is best
exemplified by Abraham. He took hundreds of people into his household and
attempted to transfer to them the discipline and godly habits which he had learned.[8]This educational ministry is the foundation of social
order, and it is always familistic.[9]Such activities
take place through voluntary associations, not coercion and regulation. There are neither
priests nor kings, for every believer is a priest and king under Christ.[10]
Future-oriented self-sacrifice is blessed by the Providence of God with
prosperity and security, obviating the purported necessity for a centralized,
welfare/warfare state.[11]

The Government must propagate the Christian religion.

CHARTER, 1606: [Issued by King James I] "To make
Habitation . . . and to deduce a colony of sundry of our People into that part of America
commonly called Virginia . . . in propagating of Christian religion to such People, as yet
live in Darkness . . . [to] bring . . . a settled and quiet Government."[13]

The only thing more offensive to the ACLU than saying non-Christians "live in
Darkness" is for the government to say it. But we all need to say this, to
encourage one another to move from lies to the Truth. If we assume a public office, that
should not stop us from making Christian exhortations; it should be the more reason to do
so.

The Government must act in the Name of God.

COMPACT, 1620: "In the name of God, Amen, We whose
names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the
grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc.,
having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith and the
honor of our king and country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of
Virginia; do by the presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one
another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our
better ordering and preservation and Furtherance of other Ends aforesaid; and by virtue
hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts,
constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most [suitable] and
convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission
and obedience."[15]

will not find these words or this history in any public school textbook.
"Recently public schools were barred from showing a film about the settlement of
Jamestown, because the film depicted the erection of a cross at the settlement [despite
the fact that] according to historical facts, a cross was erected at the Jamestown
settlement."[16]

JOHN WINTHROP, c. 1628: "Wee are a Company professing our selues fellow members of
Christ . . . knitt together by this bond of loue . . . Wee are entered into Covenant with
him for this worke."

"For wee must consider that wee shall be as a Citty vpon a Hill, the eies of all
people are vppon vs; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke
[colonization] wee haue vndertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from
vs, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world."[17]

The Biblical references are Matthew 5:13-16 ("City on a Hill") and Deuteronomy
28:37 ("made a by-word"). The Government has demolished the City of God and is
building the city of man. Tragically, America is now "the great Satan," a
"by-word through the world."

MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER, 1629: "Our said People. . . may be soe religiously,
peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderlie Conversacon maie wynn
and incite the Natives of [that] Country, to the Knowledge and Obedience of the onlie true
god and Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian fayth, which in our Royall Intencon . . . is
the principall Ende of this Plantacon."[18]

The purpose of the government was to increase Christian obedience. Today government
encourages disobedience. There is no neutrality.

The Government must extend the Christian religion.

MARYLAND CHARTER, 1632: [Issued by King Charles to Lord Baltimore]
"Our well beloved and right trusty subject Coecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore . .
. being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion . .
. hath humbly besought Leave of Us that he may transport . . . a numerous Colony of the
English Nation, to a certain Region . . . having no Knowledge of the Divine Being."[19]

Governments were established to spread the Faith.

NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, 1643: [Composed of Mass., Conn., New
Plymouth, and New Haven] "We all came into these parts of America, with one and the
same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ."[20]

The Government must advance the Gospel.

WILLIAM BRADFORD, 1647: [Referring to original Pilgrim intents]
"[A] great hope & inward zeall they had of laying some good foundation, or at
least to make some way therunto, for ye propagating & advancing ye gospell of ye
kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of ye world."[21]

There is no job, vocation, or calling in which it is inappropriate to advance the
Gospel. Our faith on Sunday should not be separated from our life on Monday-Friday.

Soon after settling, the Puritans began building great universities to educate young
men who would propagate the Gospel; universities such as Harvard. University students were
required to do the following:

Universities must propagate the Christian religion.

HARVARD STUDENT PAMPHLET,[22] c. 1635: "2.
Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well the maine
end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life,
Joh.17.3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound
knowledge and Learning.
And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himselfe by prayer
in secret to seeke it of him. Prov 2,3. 3. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice
a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein."[23]

The Purpose of Government and
the "Separation of Church and State"

The Founders of this nation did not believe in the ACLU doctrine of "Separation of
Church and State." Both Church and State were under the obligation to propagate the
Christian Faith, using different methods. The Constitution of 1787 was ratified on the
assurance that the Federal Government would have no power to destroy the long-established
Christian traditions of the various states. It was universally understood that the
governments would be subservient to God, and would implement God's Law.

I make this bold declaration: If there is some reason why the State cannot advance the
Christian Faith, then it should be abolished entirely. The Founders of this country
believed that it could and should.

NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNMENT, 1639: "Considering with ourselves the
holy Will of God and our own Necessity that we should not live without wholesome Lawes and
Civil Government among us of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ
and in the Sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such
Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the Will of God."[24]

The Bible (including the Old Testament) Must be the Standard for Civil Government

The example of New England is striking. The Statute Books of the
Government were annotated with Biblical references to show that the laws of the State
conformed to the Laws of God:[25]

NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they
were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in this
jurisdiction."[26]

Those who established governments in the New World were

NORTH CAROLINA CHARTER, 1662 (QUAKER): "Excited with a laudable
and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith . . . in the parts of America
not yet cultivated or planted, and only inhabited by . . . people, who have no knowledge
of Almighty God."[27]

RHODE ISLAND CHARTER, 1663: [Granted by King Charles II] "That
they pursuing with peace and loyal mindes, their sober, serious and religious intentions .
. . in the holy Christian faith . . . a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best
be maintained grounded upon gospel principles."[28]

The Biblical vision for society is not understood in our day because
people in our day are utterly unfamiliar with this passionate desire to establish all
human action - including civil governments - on "gospel principles." Today there
is a notion - as pervasive as it is heretical - that the "gospel" has nothing to
do with Godly, law-abiding behavior.[29]

PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT, 1682: " . . . Make and establish such
laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in all opposition to all
unchristian . . . practices."[30]

PENNSYLVANIA'S FIRST LEGISLATIVE ACT, 1682: "Whereas the glory
of Almighty God and the good of Mankind, is the reason and end of government, and
therefore, government in itself is a venerable Ordinance of God, therefore, it is the
purpose of civil government to establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian
and Civil Liberty, in opposition to all Unchristian, Licentious, and unjust practices,
(Whereby God may have his due, and Caesar his due, and the people their due), from tyranny
and oppression . . . ."[31]

The power of the civil government is awesome. That power will either be used to
cultivate the Christian religion, or it will be used to destroy it and harvest the fruits
of violence, theft, and misery. Then, the former; today, the latter.

WILLIAM PENN, 1682: [Civil government] "'seems to me to be a
part of religion itself . . . a thing sacred in its institutions and ends.'"[32]

The Founders publicly declared that they were concerned with establishing the Christian
religion, because only thereby could a republic be established. Even those who are said to
be "deists" or "atheists" were non-Christian only in private. Their public
acts (which legally define the character of their legislation) were Christian.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: [while emissary to France] "Bad examples to
youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To
this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practised. Atheism is unknown
there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country
without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel."[33]

The Founders of this nation attempted to carve out a Gospel Garden out of a pagan
wilderness. Two hundred years of flourishing charity, education, agriculture, science, and
Calvinistic gospel preaching would rise up and totally denounce the view that Civil
Government is supposed to be neutral or secular.

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1776: [May 16, anticipating full-scale war with
Britain] "The Congress . . . Desirous . . . to have people of all ranks and degrees
duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty,
devoutly to rely . . . on his aid and direction . . . Do earnestly recommend . . . a day
of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail
our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life .
. . and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and
forgiveness."[34]

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1777: [Calling for a day of thanksgiving and
prayer for the victory at Saratoga] "Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all
men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude
their obligation to him for benefits received . . . [to offer] humble and earnest
supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to
forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance . . . and to prosper the means of religion
for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'in righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"[35]

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1780: [Concerning the discovery of Benedict
Arnold as a traitor] "It is therefore recommended to the several states . . . a day
of public thanksgiving and prayer . . . to offer our fervent supplications to the God of
grace . . . to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth."[36]

JOHN HANCOCK, 1783: [Massachusetts governor, proclaiming a day of
thanksgiving for the war's end] "I do by and with the Advice of the Council appoint
[11 Dec. 1783] to be religiously observed as a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, that all
the People may then assemble to celebrate . . . that he hath been pleased to continue to
us the Light of the blessed Gospel; . . . That we also offer up fervent Supplications . .
. to cause pure Religion and Virtue to flourish . . . and to fill the World with his
glory."[37]

GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1783: [End of the war, to all state governors]
"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which
you preside, in his holy protection . . . that he would most graciously be pleased to
dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity,
humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author
of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things,
we can never hope to be a happy nation."[38]

U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1892: "Our laws and our institutions must
necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is
impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our
civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."[39]

U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1890: "The term 'religion' has reference to one's view of his
relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose for reverence for his being
and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confused with the cultus or form
of worship of a particular sect, but it is distinguishable from the latter . . . . It was
never intended or supposed that the [first] amendment could be invoked as a protection
against the legislation for the punishment of acts inimicable to the peace, good order and
morals of society . . . . However free the exercise of religion may be,
it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country passed with reference to
actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation . . .
. Probably never in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the
whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the
Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be
suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried
out without hindrance."[40]

But if we don't have the "Separation of Church and State," won't we lose our
liberties?

No nation has the liberty to repudiate God's Law. Can we be free if Christianity is
separated from public life, and criminals, perverts, and dictators, free from Christian
absolutes, keep us locked in our tiny homes? Those who don't like life in a Christian
nation are invited to try Islamic Iraq or Atheistic Communist countries.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, FRENCH HISTORIAN: "The Americans combine the notions of
Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make
them conceive the one without the other . . . In the United States, if a
political character attacks a sect [denomination], this may not prevent even the partisans
of that very sect, from supporting him; but if he attacks all the sects together
[Christianity], every one abandons him and he remains alone."[41]

NOAH WEBSTER, 1828: "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and
one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be
instructed . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the
Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and
privileges of a free people."[42]

JOHN ADAMS, August 28, 1811: "Religion and virtue are the only
foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity
under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."[43]

JOHN WITHERSPOON: " . . . he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most
sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who
sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every
kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [would not hesitate] to call him an
enemy to his country."[44]

MARYLAND SUPREME COURT, 1799: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on
its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety
and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian
religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are
placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their
religious liberty.[45]

JAMES MADISON: "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not
upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future . .
. upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to
sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."[46]

The Puritans who founded this land defended Christian Theocracy and established
Theocratic (God-honoring) systems of civil government. The idea that civil governments
should allow God to rule (Theo-cracy) human society was ubiquitous. If Gary North is right
and a Secular Humanist conspiracy attempted to overthrow this Christian consensus through
Article VI of the Constitution, the First Amendment of the Constitution attempted to keep
that from happening.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY on the First Amendment: "We are not to
attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to
religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more
reverence, than the framers of the Constitution) . . . Probably at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it . . . . the general if not
the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement
from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and
the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a
matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal
disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . The real object of
the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or
Judaism, or infidelity [secularism], by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all
rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment
which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."[47]

All of these voices are summed up in the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892) There is no
other legitimate purpose for any human action than the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
Patriotism (advancing the interests of a political coalition) is wrong; Humanism
(advancing your own personal interests) is wrong; Satanism (advancing demonic interests)
is wrong. Since all action runs to some purpose, if the purpose is not the building of
God's Kingdom, then it is to build a rival Kingdom. There is no neutrality. The State
cannot be impartial and non-religious.

I would now like to begin to show how America apostatized, and how we got to the point
where it is now "unconstitutional" for Christians to become attorneys, or even
to become American citizens.

NOTES

The joining of religion and civil government is inescapable. All civil law is
the coercive imposition of a morality. Every society has an ultimate source of morality -
a religion - from which springs all law.

Most of the Founding Fathers were suspicious of a union between the State and the
Church, that is, between the State and a specific institutional, ecclesiastical Christian
denomination. But not one - I dare say not a single one - believed it was either wise or
possible to separate the State from the principles of True Religion (granted, Jefferson's
concept of "True Religion" differed from Witherspoon's). Similarly, there is no
one in the Religious Right - not one - who denies the "separation of church and
state" where "church" is a specific institutional, ecclesiastical
denomination or Christian sect (SeeAppendix C
of the California Petition, "Religion in the Constitution and in Torcaso v. Watkins.") [Return
to text]

2. Everyone defends a theocracy; theocracy is an inescapable
concept. "Theocracy" comes from two Greek words, Theos, meaning
"God," and kratos, "power," krateo, "to hold."
It means literally "the rule of God [or god]." Since all law is religious
(previous note), we cannot escape the rule of a god. The most vocal opponents of
"theocracy" really only oppose the rule of the God of the Bible as God, but not
the rule of Man as god. We now live in a secular theocracy, in which Man is god. See
above, note 131. Plaintiff can only support a Christian Theocracy (capital
"T"). [Return to text]

3.Everson, above, note 129, 330
U.S. at 8-9, 67 S.Ct. at 508. It's as if none of these things are ever carried out by secular
sects against Trotskyites, proto-capitalist Ukrainian farmers, opponents of the
"Cultural Revolution" or other "counter-revolutionaries." Was the
problem with the Khmer Rouge that they had too much religion? Anyone - whether Christian or atheist - who claims a political or moral right to
violence is a threat to others. The answer is not "separation of church and
state," with the secular State left free to its Imperialist whims. The answer is the
Theocracy taught by Christ in the Scriptures. See below, under "Anarchism." [Return to
text]

4. G. Elliot, Twentieth Century Book of the Dead (1972); R. Rummel, Death by Government (1994)
(estimating nearly 200 million intentional State-sponsored killings in this century.)
[Return to text]

5. Whenever the courts have criticized "test oaths," they
point to persecution by Christians, while ignoring persecution by secularists. See
above,text at note 3. There is an understandable and even
appropriate double standard here. The world is more outraged by persecution from
Christians because Jesus, the Prince of Peace, told His followers to be
"anarchists" (Mark 10:42-44) and to repudiate the politics of persecution
(1 Peter 2:18-23. [Return to text]

6. A "theocracy" is not necessarily a society ruled by the
clergy. The word comes from two Greek words meaning "the rule of God." Every
society is therefore a "theocracy," because every society has a god, a Source of
Ultimate Authority. Obviously, not every society is a true Christian Theocracy. And
any society which claims to not be a theocracy merely wishes to keep the real
source of authority and power a secret. [Return to text]

7. A Biblical Theocracy has nothing to do with the civil government
being run by priests. It simply means that whoever holds offices in the State must
recognize that they are required to govern according to the Word of God. Only those laws
which God requires in His Word are to be passed.
We will continue to expand on this definition of "Theocracy." [Return to text]

12. To facilitate the easy production of this booklet, I downloaded
numerous quotes from the Internet. Not all of these quotes were included in my court
pleadings, so I haven't checked them all for accuracy. But I am quite sure they are
reliable. Most come from the book The Myth of Separation by David Barton (Aledo,
TX: Wallbuilders, 1992). [Apparently re-issued as Original Intent. A prayerful
reading of this extremely well-researched book will astonish you and show how monstrously
evil the concept of a secular state is. The Founders did not envision what the ACLU has
given us. They would be appalled to see it. [Return to text]

13. Historical Collections: Consisting of State Papers and other
Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America,
Ebenezer Hazard, ed. Philadelphia: T.Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, p. 50-51; cited in Barton, p.
84. [Return to text]

14. Historical Collections: Consisting of State Papers and other
Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America,
Ebenezer Hazard, ed. Philadelphia: T.Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51; cited in Barton, p.
85. [Return to text]

15. God and Government, Gary Demar, Vol. 1; see also Church
of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 466 (1892); cited in Barton, p. 85. [Return to text]

18. Cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 466 (1892), see also Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure:
An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983) p.
119; cited in Barton, p. 85. [Return to text]

22. Rules for the Students, established by the University
Administration. [Return to text]

23. Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical Guide for American
Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub. Co., 1921, p. 74-75; cited in Barton,
p. 91. In 1796, according to David Barton, any Harvard student who doubted the inspiration
of Scripture was to be expelled. [Return to text]

25. John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as
they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641, Collection of the Massachusetts
Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The" Journal of Christian
Reconstruction 117 (No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").
[Return to text]

29. The best antidote to this poisonous notion is Greg Bahnsen's Theonomy
in Christian Ethics, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 2nd ed.,
1984. This book is must-reading for Christians who want to stem the tide of
government-sponsored paganism and immorality. [Return to text]

31. Charter to William Penn, and Duke of Yorke's Book of Laws
(Harrisburg, PA: 1879). The Preamble and Chapter I of the Great Law can be found in, Remember
William Penn: 1644-1944; (Harrisburg, PA: The William Penn Tercentenary Committee,
1944), pp. 85-86; cited in America's Christian History: The Untold Story, by Gary
DeMar (Atlanta, GA. American Vision 1995), p. 77. [Return to text]

32. (B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil
Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia, PA: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 83;
cited from America's Christian History: The Untold Story, by Gary DeMar (Atlanta,
GA: American Vision 1995), p. 77. [Return to text]

33. Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin
Consisting of His Life, Written by Himself, Together with Essays, Humorous, Moral &
Literary, Chiefly in the Manner of the Spectator, Richard Price, Ed., Dublin: P.
Wogan, P. Byrne, J. Moore, and W. Jones, 1793, p. 289; cited in Barton, p. 100. The
evidence seems to indicate that Franklin was an adulterous hypocrite. But a hypocrite is
better than an open atheist. In his pride, Franklin felt that he was intelligent enough to
doubt the truth of Christianity in private while pragmatic enough to follow its morality
in public in order to safeguard the stability of the Republic. Lesser minds would be
corrupted by atheism, he believed. See generally Cecil B. Currey, "The
Franklin Legend," Journal of Christian Reconstruction - Symposium on Christianity
and the American Revolution, III:1:120-151 (Summer, 1976). Compare the remarks
of J. Stevens, below, note 85. [Return to text]

41. The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political
Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans., pp. 334-335, Garden City,
NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851, Vol. I, p.335; cited in Barton, p. 32. [Return
to text]

43. Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams-Second
President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p.
636. David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 1991), p.
123; America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer
(Coppell, TX: FAME Publishing Co. 1994), p. 12. [Return to text]

44. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon
(Philadelphia: Wm Woodard, 1802) Vol 3, p. 46; cited in Barton, p. 118. Witherspoon was
undoubtedly one of the most influential educators of his day. His students at Princeton
University included one President, one Vice President, three Supreme Court Justices, 10
Cabinet members, 12 Governors, 60 Congressmen (21 Senators; 39 Representatives) plus
scores of state officials and members of the Constitutional Convention. See Barton,
pp. 92-93. [Return to text]

46. cited in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p. 155,
Wallbuilders: Aledo, TX 76005. (Although widely quoted in the last 100 years, Barton
doubts the authenticity of this quotation. Click
here for discussion.) [Return to text]

47. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
2:593-95; cited in The Second American Revolution, pg. 96, John W. Whitehead, 1982,
David C. Cook Publishing Co. Also cited in The Myth of Separation, David Barton,
p.32, Wallbuilders: Aledo, TX 76005 (references overlap). [Return to
text]

48. Jesus says that Secular Humanists seek to be "archists"
in the place of Christ, and that His followers are to repudiate their program and follow
Christ to the Cross (Mark 10:42-45). This attitude is the opposite of the program of the
multinational corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the arms traders. If
Christians are not called "anarchists" by Secular Humanist caesars, then they
are doing something wrong. (Thus, the subtitle of this chapter is misleading: it is
impossible for a State to be Christian. It must be abolished entirely.) [Return to text]

49. I don't call the Biblical view "anarchism" because the
word means "absence of a ruler" and Christ is called the great
"Archist" (Colossians 1:18) or ruler (Romans 15:12). Most people think of
violence when they think of anarchy. I oppose all
violence. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. [Return to text]

50. We'll get to this soon enough, but the Biblical system of social
order is not "democracy," or any
other political system. The Biblical plan for social order is "patriarchy." All
other systems are a rebellion against God's plan.
Let me put some more cards on the table. I
defend Biblical "Patriarchy" as the normative social order set forth in the
Bible. This vision has nothing to do with polygamy and machismo. It has to do with
personal Christian responsibility and radical restrictions on secular statism. [Return to text]

Christianity is facing a crossroads. We can continue down the path we were sent on by
deceptive Secular Humanists at the time of the "Enlightenment," or we can take a
path which leads toward the Kingdom of God.

Obviously nobody is going say we should follow the Secular Humanist path rather than
the Biblical path; everybody says they want to follow the "right" path. But
which is which? This website argues that the path which leads to the destruction of
Christianity and the enthronement of Secular Humanism is the one many are telling us is
the Biblical path, while the path which leads to social order and the spread of the
Kingdom of God is being labeled "anarchistic" and "unpatriotic," on
the one hand, or "legalistic" and "intolerant" on the other.